Argued that the use of delinquency adjudications to enhance an adult criminal sentence violates US Supreme Court precedent as well as California's commitment to maintaining a separate juvenile justice system.

Challenged a provision of the PA Juvenile Act that barred Philadelphia adjudicated youth from returning to their regular public schools after they were discharged from residential delinquency placements.

Argued that because Romero was an adolescent with no attorney, no other adult tasked with advocating for him, and had not even been informed by his own attorney that he had a right to appeal, he lacked adequate access to the courts. Therefore, jurisdictional limitations should be tolled during the period of his minority.

Argued that the PA Juvenile Act authorizes child welfare courts to retain jurisdiction over foster children aged 18 to 21 and to order agencies to continue to serve those youth in a course of treatment or instruction.

Supporting a juvenile defendant in Illinois who challenged the representation he received in court, when his defense lawyer sacrificed his defense believing that it was in the child’s "best interests."

These briefs involved a thirteen-year-old student who was questioned by four adults, including a uniformed police officer, on school grounds regarding a series of break-ins. Juvenile Law Center argued that the student should have been considered in custody for Miranda purposes.

Supreme Court held the execution of juveniles unconstitutional. Juvenile Law Center’s brief argued the developmental differences between adolescents and adults in critical areas, including impulse control and understanding consequences.

Support Juvenile Law Center

One of the most important lessons from our 40 years of experience is that children involved with the justice and foster care systems need zealous legal advocates. Your support for our work is more important now than ever before.